WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is due on Monday to issue its first major abortion ruling since 2007 against a backdrop of unremitting divisions among Americans on the issue and a decades-long decline in the rate at which women terminate pregnancies.

The court’s decision on whether a Republican-backed 2013 Texas law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to abortion is one of three remaining cases for the court to decide on Monday, the last day of its term. The other major one involves whether the justices will overturn the corruption conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell.

The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure.

Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 U.S. adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 percent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 percent said it generally should be illegal.

Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data.

There has been a long decline in the U.S. abortion rate. The most recent data, from 2011, showed that there were an estimated 1.1 million abortions that year at a rate of 16.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion policy and supports abortion rights. The rate had peaked at 29 abortions per 1,000 women in 1981, the group said.

…There has been a long decline in the U.S. abortion rate. The most recent data, from 2011, showed that there were an estimated 1.1 million abortions that year at a rate of 16.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion policy and supports abortion rights. The rate had peaked at 29 abortions per 1,000 women in 1981, the group said…

Does the general public even fathom that there are 1.1 million people being ripped out of mothers wombs every year…and even that is considered a decline?

We have a long way to go in defeating this evil where half the country thinks this is okay or at best acceptable.

Right. Roe v. Wade, along with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, proclaimed that abortion is a Constitutional right through all 9 months of pregnancy (Roe determined “until viability”, Doe proclaimed “any time if the mother’s health is at risk”; combined, they mean any time for any reason). As such, all restrictions on abortion at the time were struck down. Since the followup case, PP v. Casey (which called abortion a “necessary evil” due to “contraceptive mentality”), all abortion regulations that are challenged are done so in the eye of whether they place “an unreasonable burden on a pregnant woman seeking an abortion”. Of course, this idea is obviously fuzzy, and is subject to interpretation.

I sincerely doubt that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Texas regarding the abortion law. It will likely be a 5-3 decision against Texas. Even if Scalia hadn’t died, the decision would have been 5-4. This shows the sad state the country is in right now. We are heading down a very liberal path. This decision would make it the second major liberal decision near the end of the term in as many years. I no longer respect the Supreme Court. They are continuing to force the will of the liberal federal government on the more conservative South. This can all change though. Donald Trump needs to get elected President if we want to stop the liberal tide. He will do his best to make America great again. This means that we may be able to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade. We have to keep the faith.

Does the general public even fathom that there are 1.1 million people being ripped out of mothers wombs every year…

I just wish they could be made to understand that and why it is wrong. The abortionists certainly know exactly what they’re doing, and the women have been lied to. Women who have had an abortion, and/ or worked in the industry, have appeared on “Women of Grace” to tell their stories. Women are left scarred by this, and have said they never forget the little one they could have had but let the abortionist destroy. Not only that, but they’ve also talked about forced and strongly encouraged abortions. In other words, a woman has decided, at the last second, not to have her child destroyed, and the doctor, or technician, or whoever, practically forces her to do it. Oh, I thought it was her “choice”? Not the case if she decides, even right there, to just turn around and walk right out again? The money. Nothing more. I sympathize with the women who are misled into it. I don’t sympathize with the women who possibly haven’t even gone through an abortion themselves and can just have a smirky, arrogant attitude about destroying the life of a child who had every right to live the life he or she was given…as well as destroying the women they claim they are all for. They are NOT for women, also counting the tiny baby girls who would have grown up to be women.

At issue are two provisions–that abortion clinics meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital for situations of medical emergencies.

Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) requirements are applied to facilities that perform invasive outpatient surgeries. Ambulatory Surgery Center standards ensure that these facilities have a sterile environment and proper sanitation; an adequate number of trained and qualified staffers; and the ability to address medical emergencies, emergency access, and basic fire prevention and safety.

Before passing H.B. 2, legislators received testimony from a number of medical professionals on the necessity of applying these commonsense standards to abortion facilities. Many of those testimonies are detailed in an amicus brief submitted in Whole Woman’s Health on behalf of a bipartisan, bicameral group of 121 Texas legislators.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, whose membership includes thousands of physicians working in a variety of medical specialties, also wrote an amicus brief in Whole Woman’s Health, affirming that “Texas is on solid medical ground.” They write:

[It is] beyond dispute that it is reasonable to require outpatient abortion facilities to abide by ASC regulations. After all, it is common ground that abortion in most cases involves a surgical procedure, that abortions occur in large numbers in outpatient settings, and that abortion (including medication abortion) presents medical risks that ASC regulations seek to prevent, mitigate, or remedy.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons continues:

ASC regulations target precisely the kinds of potential complications involved in outpatient abortion. … ASC regulations require more than just a sterile surgical environment. They broadly address any number of additional safety issues—such as infection control, patient supervision, anesthesia standards, and emergency protocols—that are directly relevant to the well-being of abortion patients.

Admitting Privileges

Since an estimated 200 women a year will be hospitalized in Texas following an abortion, it is also reasonable for policymakers to require physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Hospital admitting privileges generally means that a physician has the qualifications and good standing in the medical community to admit and provide care for a patient at that hospital. Experts testifying in favor of H.B. 2 explained that admitting privileges can help ensure greater continuity of care in the event of an emergency, increase communication between the abortion doctor and hospital staff, and act as a check on the general quality of doctors practicing medicine.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons brief continues:

[C]redentialing and privileging enhance both the safety of patients and the integrity of the medical profession. The process ensures that ‘[p]ractitioners have privileges that correspond to the care, treatment and services needed by individual patients.’ It maximizes a physician’s ability to communicate with other physicians and coordinate all necessary care for the benefit of the patient. At the same time, the process allows ‘an overview of each applicant’s licensure, education, training, current competence, and physical ability to discharge patient care responsibilities.’

Again, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons summarizes: “Put simply, an outpatient surgical provider with the ability to admit his patients to a hospital is more likely to be a physician with the experience, integrity and ability to provide his patients with the care they need, especially in the event of unforeseen emergencies.”

I think I’m going to have to side with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Nursing, American Nurses Society, American Public Health Association, and many others that these restrictions are not just medically unnecessary but harmful over the organization that questions the link between HIV and AIDS.

I think I’m going to have to side with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Nursing, American Nurses Society, American Public Health Association, and many others that these restrictions are not just medically unnecessary but harmful over the organization that questions the link between HIV and AIDS.

Why wouldn’t this extend to abortion? Do they no longer stand by the statement they signed onto?

As for the article that came out from doctor questioning or expressing scepticism on HIV/AIDS link, whatever this doctor may say on that issue, people have a right to question and criticise this, but it doesn’t mean that the organisation’s stance on the regulations in HB2 are at fault.

I think I’m going to have to side with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Nursing, American Nurses Society, American Public Health Association, and many others that these restrictions are not just medically unnecessary but harmful over the organization that questions the link between HIV and AIDS.

I think I’m going to have to side with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Nursing, American Nurses Society, American Public Health Association, and many others that these restrictions are not just medically unnecessary but harmful over the organization that questions the link between HIV and AIDS.

It should be of no surprise that those who profit from abortion oppose any restrictions on it